Evaluating the Effectiveness of Two-Stage Testing on English and French Versions of a Science Achievement Test
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study evaluated the effectiveness of two-stage testing on English and French versions of a science achievement test administered to a national sample in Canada in 1996 and 1999. The tests were administered and scored with the implicit assumption that the two language forms were equivalent. Analysis of the first-stage test revealed that 3 out of 12 items displayed differential item functioning (DIF) in both administrations. However, substantive reviews suggested that translation errors were not the cause of DIF. Analysis of the second-stage test revealed that the test was not comparable between ability groups but was comparable for English and French examinees within each ability group in both administrations. This study illustrates how test developers can monitor their adaptation and administration process when alternative testing procedures are used with multiple language groups. The results are also relevant to cross-cultural researchers who compare examinees from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it